Try the political quiz

1.7k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes

 @2TXP8NBDemocrat disagreed…6mos6MO

If a company cannot break even or make a profit, their business model has failed and they don't need to stay in business.

 @9FS6TV3 from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

Some companies are doing fundamental research or are too niche to be profitable yet their products can be vital for the respective fields they conduct business in.

 @2TXP8NBDemocratagreed…6mos6MO

Yes, and those companies deserve a chance to prove their thesis and get the initial R&D turned into real products and services. This is why the BDC markets exist, and I have no concerns with the government providing R&D funding through the NSF and other channels. But a city giving economic incentives at the expense of their own tax base is doing their citizens a disservice. I'd prefer that the market be allowed to pick the winners rather than a city council doing it on the backs of their taxpayers.

 @9FSBHC8 from Georgia disagreed…6mos6MO

While it is a corporation's responsibility to ensure financial stability of their corporation the loss of jobs from said corporation would be too severe and have a negative impact on the national economy.

 @2TXP8NBDemocratcommented…6mos6MO

Very good point, but if the job losses from a single corporation are going to have a negative impact on the entire national economy, there are bigger issues that need to be worked out. I supported the takeover of the major automakers in 2010, because it was a restructuring that took your point into account and made sure that the automobile manufacturing industry did not collapse. That wasn't a subsidy, really, it was more of an industry rescue package.

This was very different from putting tax breaks to corporations into the law just because the company gives a contribution to a political candidate.

 @9F92YNC  from Kentucky agreed…7mos7MO

For example: in the state of KY, eastern KY and the Appalachian region drastically needs many kinds of businesses to serve the people but few corporations are willing to invest in the region due to low numbers of people and economic distress. If the government would assist in bringing in businesses, many problems might be eased and in time the region could be a profitable place for a business to locate..

Any coastal community a hurricane has devastated serves as an example of the need for government investment and assistance (subsidy) in businesses for recovery and survival.

 @CockatooPeteRepublican from New Jersey agreed…7mos7MO

Absolutely, areas such as eastern KY and the Appalachian region, which are often overlooked due to less favorable economic conditions, could definitely benefit from such incentives. It's a win-win situation where businesses get a boost to establish and the local community gets job opportunities and economic upliftment. Similarly, for coastal communities hit by natural disasters, these incentives can stimulate recovery and resilience. But how do we ensure that these incentives lead to long-term commitment from businesses rather than short-term gain?

 @9FZQ84Rfrom Virgin Islands agreed…6mos6MO

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1172301798/workers-affordable-housing-companies-building
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/08/us-affordable-housing-corporations-amazon-low-interest-rates
https://ripplematch.com/career-advice/awesome-companies-located-in-affordable-cities-53a99824/
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-cheaper-to-buy-houses-than-to-build-them-and-refine-them-as-a-company

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No, the government should never subsidize private businesses

 @9F92YNC  from Kentucky disagreed…7mos7MO

The government should subsidize some private businesses: to help some get started, to help some open new locations in needy areas, to help in recovery from natural disasters. The government should be allowed to subsidize for specific reasons and with maximum and minimum money levels.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No

 @9FP2KHQ from Illinois disagreed…6mos6MO

Corporations being corporations can already hold their own most of the time, and hold a fair share of the market and social power in general. Saying "NO" would help perpetuate economic disparities and inequalities in America and keep money in the hands of possible corrupt leaders. Giving people the opportunity to acquire employment and climb up the economic ladder is what we want.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and the community to attract companies

 @9FZQ84Rfrom Virgin Islands disagreed…6mos6MO

Companies build more on burnt down places because it's cheaper, a place being more expensive not necessarily attracts companies, that argument is insufficient, mainly because companies take advantage of this to make their own housing restrictions, i.e. 'if you work for us we will give you housing ourselves'

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

No, but punish them for moving jobs out of the country

 @9GBVFHR from New York disagreed…5mos5MO

Yes, because if they do move jobs out of the country, it could open up job positions for other people in the world who might be more qualified.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised

 @9FP2KHQ from Illinois agreed…6mos6MO

If the local government were compromised that would be infringing on the civil liberties of the individuals in the area since it is their community. So the corporations would have to find a way to work WITH the community to provide new jobs.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes, if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes, as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes, but I would prefer lowering corporate taxes to benefit all local companies

 @2TXP8NBDemocrat disagreed…6mos6MO

The lack of corporate taxes is one of the biggest reasons why the US Federal Government has a deficit and a growing debt.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs5Y

Yes, but only if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer

 @7PTCG38Democrat from Wisconsin answered…1yr1Y

Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised, the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents, and the tax revenue will eventually exceed the tax incentives

 @8G5T788 from Kansas answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but every state should have their own incentive program if they choose to have one at all. This is not a federal level issue.

 @9JDPKH4Democrat from New York answered…2mos2MO

Yes, provided that tax revenue will exceed tax incentives, the company promises to hire mostly local residents, and local citizens vote to approve it.

 @8TPZGDY from Kansas answered…3yrs3Y

 @9L4WH4L  from Missouri answered…3 days3D

Yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised, if local citizens can vote on the amount of incentives to offer, and if the company promises to create new jobs by hiring local residents

 @9L4R9YCRepublican from Missouri answered…3 days3D

Yes, but only if local citizens can vote on the incentives (and amount) and the creation of new jobs that hire local residents without hurting the local environment.

 @9L4G5CYfrom Maine answered…4 days4D

No, spend money on improving infrastructure and economy and the comunity to attract companies and punish them for moving jobs out of country.

 @9L3T749 from Tennessee answered…5 days5D

Yes, as long as the tax revenue would outpace the tax incentives and would create jobs for locals rather than individuals moving in to fill the jobs.

 @9L3KKMYfrom Maine answered…6 days6D

No, spend that money on improving ingrastructure and comunity to attract companies and decrease taxes.

 @9L2WPZMfrom Maine answered…7 days7D

No, spend that money on improving infrastructure and the comunity to attract companies , decrese taxes and panish them if move jobs out of country...

 @9KYF8QF from California answered…1wk1W

Yes, but I would prefer that money be used to encourage entrepeneurship within the community instead.

 @9KVMCZH from Texas answered…2wks2W

Yes, as long as the incentives apply to a wide range of companies and not just specific companies that make specific deals

 @9KQTXBGIndependent from Nebraska answered…3wks3W

Yes as long as the local environment isn’t compromised AND as long as the tax revenue will eventually exceed tax incentives

 @9KNPCWJ from Idaho answered…3wks3W

yes, as long as the local environment is not compromised and promise to create new jobs by hiring local residents

 @9KLP5XC from Virginia answered…3wks3W

No, the government should make their tax system inviting to all companies and not create different rules for different companies.

 @9KH7ZYHfrom Montana answered…4wks4W

No, punish companies for moving out of country and more to attract companies by improving the infrastructure.

 @9KGSD9S from California answered…4wks4W

yes, but it should be at the decision of the company whether or not to accept. and if it creates more jobs by hiring local residents

 @9KBYNKK from Utah answered…4wks4W

Yes but with safeguards to the local environment and with a sunset clause so tax revenues eventually offset there revenue lost through the incentive.

 @9JNQ2FCfrom Maine answered…2mos2MO

No, spend money on improving infrastructure and the economy to atract companies, decrease taxes and punish them for moving jobs out of country.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...